Talk:Sheriffs in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sheriffs in the United States is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Fatality handling, coroner, SAR

At least in California, USA, the Sheriff has the responsibility to recover any deceased persons within their county. That is why often the full title is Deputy Sheriff Coroner, and that is one of the main reasons Search & Rescue teams fall under the Sheriff’s department instead of Fire/Rescue branch or local Police Departments. If there is a deceased person, legally (not minding and local agreements between agencies) the Sheriff has sole duty to recover the body. Does anyone know more about this, especially for other states in the USA? To me it is one of the crucial differences between Sheriff & Police departments, as well as the reasoning behind "Sheriff Rescue" squads. (Unsigned)

Uh, yeah, but not in all 58 California counties;San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod ordered the coroner's office merged into the Sheriff's Department a few years back as a cost-saving measure, and a similar thing exists in both Riverside and Inyo Counties...here in L.A. County, it will be a VERY long time before a merger will happen between the LASD and the Department of the Medical Examiner(our official name for "Coroner's Office")...Michaela92399 02:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the "Search and Rescue squad" evolved from, and is more likely a modern term for, the "posse" of old who would have been called out just as often if not more so to look for lost people, as to track down a rampant fugitive. As to unifying the offices of Sheriff and Coroner, this is mostly an organizational option; while that is the arrangement in Orange County I think the two offices are still separate agencies in Los Angeles County, and moving a body from a crime scene in San Francisco could (I am not sure) be a function of Public Health. - knoodelhed 08:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Law enforcement function in US

I think the concept of the sheriff as the county's principal police authority might have more accurately evolved from the Anglo-Welsh High Sheriff, as that is clearly an executive function while the Scottish sheriff is a judiciary role. - knoodelhed 08:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The judicial role of the Scottish sheriff and the quasi-executive function of the High Sheriff in fact derive from the same source - the shire reeves who were charged with maintaining the King's peace. The Anglo-Welsh High Sheriff lost its direct judicial power whilst the Scottish office lost its executive functions. Davidkinnen 09:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where does this belong

This was located on the sharif article, however, I took it out because it adds nothing to that article. However, I searched this article and there was no mention of "shire reeve." Perhaps someone can find a place to insert this into this article.

The English term sheriff is not related to the Arabic term; it is a contraction for the Anglo-Saxon office of "shire reeve."

Pepsidrinka 05:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Having checked dictionary.com, all the references agree with this origination of the word (Shire Reeve). However, I remember this question appearing in a trivia quizz, and it was stated that this is a popular misconception and the origination is actually a contraction of the equally plausible "shire bailiff". I don't have access to the full OED, which I'd consider to be the definitive reference source on the subject, so I'm not comfortable saying so either way. Perhaps if someone could check the OED for the first-usage examples, could discount this conclusively.

Ace42 01:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minority sheriffs?

Is there a record of sheriffs who came from a minority background, like African-American, Native American or female? --149.226.255.200 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Governor of Texas is not the “High Sheriff” of the state. That term is not used anywhere in the Texas statutes or Texas Constitution. Moreover, the governor does not have any general authority over a sheriff.

Additionally, the Governor of Texas is not the “Chief Texas Ranger”. That term is also not used anywhere in the Texas statutes or Texas Constitution, and the governor is not designated as a Texas Ranger or any other type of peace officer for that matter.

The Texas Rangers normally answer to the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas Government Code §411.021). However, the governor can assume command of the TX DPS for various reasons (TCG §411.012), but this is not the same as being the “Chief Texas Ranger”.

[edit] sheriff, a mini dynasty

Some Muslim people in india have a family name of sheriff followed by their first name. The term "sheriff" is added next to their first name of all members of their family. People with this name are wide spread all over india.

This is usually written in English as Sharif, such as Omar Sharif. Bearian 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deputizing

Have we covered how a sheriff can deputize people? Jeff503 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but I added material for Undersheriff before I logged in (under 71.245.156.223), and added the "verify tag". Bearian 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you mean to include information indicating that Sheriffs (generally) have a power to deputise then that information may be relevant to this article. It would then be relevant to indicate that the titles used by those deputies are varied depending upon the jurisdiction in which the Sheriff operates and the various roles they are deputised to perform and include Deputy Sheriff, Under Sheriff, Assistant Sheriff, Sheriff's Officer, Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff, Assistant Bailiff,.... (Can anyone else add to this list?) I would suggest however that the article refrains from describing "how" the Sheriff makes those appointments because it will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction for example from mere oral or written deputisation through to appointment processes requiring variously approval of the court judges, by other court officials and/or by the the government in the jurisdiction.Lanyon 01:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana Sheriff

In the article it states: " many counties' agreement with the sheriff's department allows the elected sheriff to keep the remaining funds allocated.[5][1] " I went to the referenced page and found this under allocation of funding for feeding prisoners:

(A) The county fiscal body shall make an appropriation in the usual manner from the county general fund to the sheriff for feeding prisoners. The sheriff or the sheriff's officers, deputies, or employees may not make a profit from the appropriation. The sheriff shall deposit all meal allowances received under IC 36-8-10-7 in the county general fund for use for any general fund purpose.
(B) The sheriff shall pay for feeding prisoners from meal allowances received under IC 36-8-10-7. The sheriff or the sheriff's officers, deputies, or employees may not make a profit from the meal allowances. After the expenses of feeding prisoners are paid, the sheriff shall deposit any unspent meal allowance money in the county general fund for use for any general fund purpose.


It looks as though the Sheriff is responsible for feeding prisoners, but any balance remaining is to go to the "general fund for use for any general fund purpose". It is possible that in practice there is a way for the Sheriff to get moneys remaining from this use, but in the quoted state code, I don't see how that would be legal. Any attorneys want to take this on?Crocadillion 17:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for Upstate New York only, Sheriff have great latitude to shift money around within their budgets. They often bring in net revenue by commissions from collections and sales of forfeited property. The net moneys go to the coutny's general funds. I don't have a cite at my fingertips, but look at: [2], CNT, article 17. Bearian 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm Crocadillion 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Orleans Parish sheriffs' offices in 2010...

This is just as bad as when we Californians were ordered(in 2000) to vote the 58 counties' municipal courts into oblivion, along w/ the court police services[marshals] [User:Michaela92399|Michaela92399]] 02:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Despite casual use of the term "officer" by some federal agencies to refer to their personnel authorized to make arrests and carry firearms,<refBureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, July 2006.</ref they are only special agents, not law enforcement officers. They have no command authority over civilians or local law enforcment officers, such as sheriffs, constables, and state officers. This has come out in several cases where there has been a jurisdictional dispute between a county sheriff and a federal special agent.<refCastaneda v. USA, Case No: 2:1996cv00099, Wyoming District Court, Casper, decided 29th April 1997. Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis: "If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody."</ref><refPrintz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997),</ref Only U.S. marshals can be said to be law enforcement officers.

The first reference only shows that the term "officer" is used, so we have no reference for the assertion that it is incorrect. Why does that matter anyway? This article isn't about federal agents. The second reference, to a concurring opinion in Printz v. United States, doesn't mention "Castaneda v. USA, Case No: 2:1996cv00099, Wyoming District Court, Casper, decided 29th April 1997". Furthermore, there are sources out there which claim this case and that quote from it are a hoax.[3][4] Until we can find a reliable source that mentions this finding we should leave this out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)